\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics"],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208960,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nOp is a teenager."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208961,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208962,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nPlumbers usually."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?"],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208963,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208964,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone"],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208965,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nThe fk did I just read"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208966,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read"],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208967,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208968,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208969,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208970,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?"],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208971,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?\",\n \">\\n\\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208972,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?\",\n \">\\n\\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.\",\n \">\\n\\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208973,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?"],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?\",\n \">\\n\\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.\",\n \">\\n\\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208974,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?"],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?\",\n \">\\n\\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.\",\n \">\\n\\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208975,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?",">\n\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?"],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?\",\n \">\\n\\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.\",\n \">\\n\\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?\",\n \">\\n\\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208976,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nWrong sub, OP"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?",">\n\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?",">\n\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?\",\n \">\\n\\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.\",\n \">\\n\\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?\",\n \">\\n\\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208977,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nShow me on this doll where the mean landlord touched you."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?",">\n\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?",">\n\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc.",">\n\nWrong sub, OP"],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?\",\n \">\\n\\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.\",\n \">\\n\\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?\",\n \">\\n\\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc.\",\n \">\\n\\nWrong sub, OP\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208978,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo i dont.",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",">\n\nExploitation.",">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",">\n\nBro just described communism.",">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",">\n\nTheft from whom?",">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",">\n\nCommunist spotted",">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",">\n\nBuy high sell low.",">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",">\n\nOp is a teenager.",">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",">\n\nPlumbers usually.",">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",">\n\nThe fk did I just read",">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?",">\n\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?",">\n\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc.",">\n\nWrong sub, OP",">\n\nShow me on this doll where the mean landlord touched you."],"string":"[\n \"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?\",\n \">\\n\\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nOh people are forced to rent now.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.\",\n \">\\n\\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo i dont.\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \\nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \\nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.\",\n \">\\n\\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.\",\n \">\\n\\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.\",\n \">\\n\\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.\",\n \">\\n\\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?\",\n \">\\n\\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.\",\n \">\\n\\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.\",\n \">\\n\\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\\n\\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.\",\n \">\\n\\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \\nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \\nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔\",\n \">\\n\\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?\",\n \">\\n\\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\\nTimes and conditions change.\",\n \">\\n\\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.\",\n \">\\n\\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️\",\n \">\\n\\nThat is an investment however. \\nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \\nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \\nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \\nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?\",\n \">\\n\\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\\n\\nMan doesn’t know how leases work\",\n \">\\n\\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.\",\n \">\\n\\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.\",\n \">\\n\\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.\",\n \">\\n\\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis post reads as \\\"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning\",\n \">\\n\\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”\",\n \">\\n\\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!\",\n \">\\n\\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.\",\n \">\\n\\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.\",\n \">\\n\\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.\",\n \">\\n\\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage\",\n \">\\n\\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.\",\n \">\\n\\nOr how about we let people do what they want?\",\n \">\\n\\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!\",\n \">\\n\\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?\",\n \">\\n\\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism\",\n \">\\n\\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.\",\n \">\\n\\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.\",\n \">\\n\\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \\nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.\",\n \">\\n\\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \\nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \\\"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\\\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.\",\n \">\\n\\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...\",\n \">\\n\\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \\\"illogical\\\"?\",\n \">\\n\\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.\",\n \">\\n\\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is dumb.\\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.\",\n \">\\n\\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \\\"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\\\" and \\\"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\\\" ? \\nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).\",\n \">\\n\\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?\",\n \">\\n\\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \\nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.\",\n \">\\n\\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)\",\n \">\\n\\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \\\"live.\\\"\",\n \">\\n\\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \\\"right\\\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.\",\n \">\\n\\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \\nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.\",\n \">\\n\\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.\",\n \">\\n\\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.\",\n \">\\n\\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\\n\\n\\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \\n\\n\\nWhat are you, a communist? \\n\\n\\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \\n\\n\\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\\n\\n\\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\\n\\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\\nThis is econ 101.\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!\",\n \">\\n\\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \\\"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\\\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.\",\n \">\\n\\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \\nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe most popular opinion ever.\\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.\",\n \">\\n\\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this\",\n \">\\n\\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”\",\n \">\\n\\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \\nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \\\"hoarding\\\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people\",\n \">\\n\\nSo communism.\\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.\",\n \">\\n\\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\\nBut I guess it's just another \\\"hot take\\\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.\",\n \">\\n\\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.\",\n \">\\n\\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.\",\n \">\\n\\nCongrats, you're a communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nSuch a ridiculous take\",\n \">\\n\\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.\",\n \">\\n\\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?\",\n \">\\n\\nExploitation.\",\n \">\\n\\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?\",\n \">\\n\\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \\nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.\",\n \">\\n\\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?\",\n \">\\n\\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.\",\n \">\\n\\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.\",\n \">\\n\\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\\n\\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\\n\\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\\n\\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro just described communism.\",\n \">\\n\\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao\",\n \">\\n\\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them\",\n \">\\n\\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\\nAll property is theft😁\",\n \">\\n\\nTheft from whom?\",\n \">\\n\\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon\",\n \">\\n\\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.\",\n \">\\n\\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive\",\n \">\\n\\nCommunist spotted\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol\",\n \">\\n\\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?\",\n \">\\n\\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \\\"what social apps do you use?\\\", they say, \\\"which social apps do you have?\\\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \\nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \\nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.\",\n \">\\n\\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\\n\\nSo ask yourself, \\\"What is human nature\\\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.\",\n \">\\n\\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.\",\n \">\\n\\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?\",\n \">\\n\\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.\",\n \">\\n\\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.\",\n \">\\n\\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou buy a house for 120,000\\nYou sell a house for 120,000\\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \\nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.\",\n \">\\n\\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.\",\n \">\\n\\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.\",\n \">\\n\\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?\",\n \">\\n\\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \\nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.\",\n \">\\n\\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.\",\n \">\\n\\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol\",\n \">\\n\\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion\",\n \">\\n\\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \\nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?\",\n \">\\n\\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate\",\n \">\\n\\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…\",\n \">\\n\\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.\",\n \">\\n\\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \\\"disaster\\\" in the past 40 years. \\nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.\",\n \">\\n\\ni mean youre not wrong\",\n \">\\n\\nBuy high sell low.\",\n \">\\n\\nHousing should be a human right.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\\n\\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.\",\n \">\\n\\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!\",\n \">\\n\\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership\",\n \">\\n\\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics\",\n \">\\n\\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.\",\n \">\\n\\nOp is a teenager.\",\n \">\\n\\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?\",\n \">\\n\\nPlumbers usually.\",\n \">\\n\\nFinally someone else with basic sense\\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone\",\n \">\\n\\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\\nI think it is \\\"toxic\\\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe fk did I just read\",\n \">\\n\\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.\",\n \">\\n\\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.\",\n \">\\n\\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.\",\n \">\\n\\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?\",\n \">\\n\\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.\",\n \">\\n\\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.\",\n \">\\n\\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?\",\n \">\\n\\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?\",\n \">\\n\\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc.\",\n \">\\n\\nWrong sub, OP\",\n \">\\n\\nShow me on this doll where the mean landlord touched you.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208979,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":[],"string":"[]"}}},{"rowIdx":208980,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nHaha"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA"],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208981,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha"],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208982,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208983,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208984,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208985,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights..."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208986,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights..."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208987,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria"],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208988,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208989,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208990,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208991,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?"],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\",\n \">\\n\\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208992,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?"],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\",\n \">\\n\\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?\",\n \">\\n\\nyou wouldn't download an army?\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208993,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator"],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\",\n \">\\n\\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?\",\n \">\\n\\nyou wouldn't download an army?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou wouldn't download a dictator\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208994,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nBlyatware."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\",\n \">\\n\\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?\",\n \">\\n\\nyou wouldn't download an army?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou wouldn't download a dictator\",\n \">\\n\\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208995,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nPerfection"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",">\n\nBlyatware."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\",\n \">\\n\\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?\",\n \">\\n\\nyou wouldn't download an army?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou wouldn't download a dictator\",\n \">\\n\\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.\",\n \">\\n\\nBlyatware.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208996,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",">\n\nBlyatware.",">\n\nPerfection"],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\",\n \">\\n\\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?\",\n \">\\n\\nyou wouldn't download an army?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou wouldn't download a dictator\",\n \">\\n\\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.\",\n \">\\n\\nBlyatware.\",\n \">\\n\\nPerfection\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208997,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nAnd all those crappy Russian propaganda movies from unfriendly Russia who's trying to use them as meat for their invasion of Ukraine."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",">\n\nBlyatware.",">\n\nPerfection",">\n\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\",\n \">\\n\\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?\",\n \">\\n\\nyou wouldn't download an army?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou wouldn't download a dictator\",\n \">\\n\\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.\",\n \">\\n\\nBlyatware.\",\n \">\\n\\nPerfection\",\n \">\\n\\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208998,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nBro can yall just fucking not? Doesn't matter what the fucking thread is about yall always need to bring up the fucking war. The world doesn't revolve around Russia and Ukraine."},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",">\n\nBlyatware.",">\n\nPerfection",">\n\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture.",">\n\nAnd all those crappy Russian propaganda movies from unfriendly Russia who's trying to use them as meat for their invasion of Ukraine."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\",\n \">\\n\\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?\",\n \">\\n\\nyou wouldn't download an army?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou wouldn't download a dictator\",\n \">\\n\\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.\",\n \">\\n\\nBlyatware.\",\n \">\\n\\nPerfection\",\n \">\\n\\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture.\",\n \">\\n\\nAnd all those crappy Russian propaganda movies from unfriendly Russia who's trying to use them as meat for their invasion of Ukraine.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":208999,"cells":{"comment":{"kind":"string","value":">\n\nWhat do you think this law is about?"},"context":{"kind":"list like","value":["Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",">\n\nHaha",">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",">\n\nBlyatware.",">\n\nPerfection",">\n\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture.",">\n\nAnd all those crappy Russian propaganda movies from unfriendly Russia who's trying to use them as meat for their invasion of Ukraine.",">\n\nBro can yall just fucking not? Doesn't matter what the fucking thread is about yall always need to bring up the fucking war. The world doesn't revolve around Russia and Ukraine."],"string":"[\n \"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA\",\n \">\\n\\nHaha\",\n \">\\n\\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.\",\n \">\\n\\nI was thinking the same thing.\\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.\",\n \">\\n\\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \\nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.\",\n \">\\n\\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.\",\n \">\\n\\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...\",\n \">\\n\\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria\",\n \">\\n\\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.\",\n \">\\n\\n\\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\\n\\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.\",\n \">\\n\\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.\",\n \">\\n\\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?\",\n \">\\n\\nyou wouldn't download an army?\",\n \">\\n\\nYou wouldn't download a dictator\",\n \">\\n\\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.\",\n \">\\n\\nBlyatware.\",\n \">\\n\\nPerfection\",\n \">\\n\\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture.\",\n \">\\n\\nAnd all those crappy Russian propaganda movies from unfriendly Russia who's trying to use them as meat for their invasion of Ukraine.\",\n \">\\n\\nBro can yall just fucking not? Doesn't matter what the fucking thread is about yall always need to bring up the fucking war. The world doesn't revolve around Russia and Ukraine.\"\n]"}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":2089,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":212704,"offset":208900,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc0NjgyODYwOCwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2lubm92YXRpb24taGFja2luZzIvc2hpdHBvc3RpbmdfZGF0YXNldDUiLCJleHAiOjE3NDY4MzIyMDgsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaHVnZ2luZ2ZhY2UuY28ifQ.z5eZmDs6ragkLInZ9R1C8s26LxZiMaoRNUF4hbOok_0i-WI21ti6xxBRRPKsEqWmyi-8PbxH0QfJ8YLE9oMVCQ","displayUrls":true},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":0,"total":0},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
comment
stringlengths 1
9.49k
| context
sequencelengths 0
760
|
|---|---|
>
Having more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.
They don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it."
] |
>
Congrats, you're a communist! | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed."
] |
>
Such a ridiculous take | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!"
] |
>
The concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take"
] |
>
How do you think supermarkets exist? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent."
] |
>
Exploitation. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?"
] |
>
Right, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation."
] |
>
No, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment.
Food should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?"
] |
>
So you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment."
] |
>
That's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?"
] |
>
Growing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?
Another point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology."
] |
>
I did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms.
I doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping."
] |
>
For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example
Wait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?
I doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.
I don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale."
] |
>
Bro just described communism. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do."
] |
>
Tell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism."
] |
>
Stupidest thing I've ever heard. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao"
] |
>
People should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard."
] |
>
Il add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:
All property is theft😁 | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them"
] |
>
Theft from whom? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁"
] |
>
From the commons, from all of us!
But if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?"
] |
>
Nah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon"
] |
>
popular opinion on reddit, stupid irl | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'."
] |
>
Average Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl"
] |
>
Communist spotted | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive"
] |
>
Op is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted"
] |
>
Why would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol"
] |
>
Disagree because that's not how economics work.
Great job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.
In all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.
I'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, "what social apps do you use?", they say, "which social apps do you have?" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.
I know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?"
] |
>
If a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so.
I know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe.
While I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality."
] |
>
This is just advocating for communism with extra steps.
People are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.
Houses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.
So ask yourself, "What is human nature", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted."
] |
>
What I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy."
] |
>
...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird."
] |
>
Quality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them."
] |
>
Where should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal."
] |
>
Agree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?"
] |
>
I think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets."
] |
>
Should? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall."
] |
>
You buy a house for 120,000
You sell a house for 120,000
That’s how you make it work. Self control if you will.
You could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?"
] |
>
You know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway."
] |
>
You know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old."
] |
>
One of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax."
] |
>
I guess you would prefer people live in slums? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum."
] |
>
If there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.
There should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential.
Banks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?"
] |
>
Just ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage."
] |
>
Wait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out."
] |
>
Definitely an unpopular opinion | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol"
] |
>
I just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere.
I figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion"
] |
>
So if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?"
] |
>
I have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?"
] |
>
I'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.
Likewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate"
] |
>
If you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses… | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties."
] |
>
If you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…"
] |
>
Personal selfish gain lmfao
Dude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic "disaster" in the past 40 years.
But yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.
You're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing."
] |
>
i mean youre not wrong | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it."
] |
>
Buy high sell low. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong"
] |
>
Housing should be a human right. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low."
] |
>
all money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.
On one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right."
] |
>
i think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist! | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot."
] |
>
Man, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!"
] |
>
Average redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership"
] |
>
How would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics"
] |
>
Op is a teenager. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you."
] |
>
Who fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager."
] |
>
Plumbers usually. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?"
] |
>
Finally someone else with basic sense
Edit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.
But some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.
Also renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually."
] |
>
A house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.
I think it is "toxic" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone"
] |
>
The fk did I just read | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment."
] |
>
I think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read"
] |
>
Icky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky."
] |
>
The icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.
And they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves."
] |
>
But they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for."
] |
>
Sure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",
">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?"
] |
>
Then how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",
">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",
">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be."
] |
>
What happens to the money you get for your labour? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",
">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",
">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",
">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit."
] |
>
You don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",
">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",
">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",
">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",
">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?"
] |
>
I mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house? | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",
">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",
">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",
">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",
">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",
">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?"
] |
>
So how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",
">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",
">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",
">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",
">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",
">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?",
">\n\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?"
] |
>
Wrong sub, OP | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",
">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",
">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",
">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",
">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",
">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?",
">\n\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?",
">\n\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc."
] |
>
Show me on this doll where the mean landlord touched you. | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",
">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",
">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",
">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",
">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",
">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?",
">\n\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?",
">\n\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc.",
">\n\nWrong sub, OP"
] |
> | [
"Explain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nMy guess it’s something along the lines of he gets everything he wants and everyone, but him, has to pay for it. What’s the big deal?",
">\n\nIt seems like, for him, investment is the enemy. Why invest if government can give you stuff?",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nDon't know why you are getting down voted for facts.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nOh people are forced to rent now.",
">\n\nYes, 100%. If one can’t afford to buy a home, their only options are homelessness or renting.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nSorry that’ll be me that pushed you. Don’t look for me, or you might live forever",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nwe remodeled then sold our condo, using the proceeds as a down payment on a run-down chicago two-flat. we then remodeled that over the course of 11 years (as well as renting out the second unit), and sold it for over 3x what we paid for it. that allowed us to buy this, our current and hopefully last house(on a 1-acre lot) for cash.",
">\n\nHey, good for you internet stranger. You did the work and now get to enjoy it. Seriously, good job!",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nWhat do you think people who do own multiple houses do with their money",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nLimit of 3 houses for individuals or companies? Either way it's not a good idea",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo i dont.",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nBut then imagine that some of those people started 50 years before me, when the price of homes relative to the average wage was far far lower. Then say that those people were of an age where they could take advantage of the housing crashes that happened before my lifetime. \nI'd say that jist inevitably leads to better outcome for one subset of the population, while screwing the rest",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nInteresting because I would say 90% of the people who “are not in a position” to buy cannot buy a house because a unnecessary demand has been created because medium income families own multiple properties, very wealthy families own 10+ properties and basically causing a commodification of housing where prices have sky-rocketed. The math seems very very simple so can you please elaborate why OP is wrong. \nI am biased btw because I am salty that the job I am currently in would have gotten me a nice house in a semi-nice area 20 years ago but now it barely affords me a dodgy apartment.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nIDK. I rather like the fact that I invested in a home to live in, to fix up, and to give to my kids when I finally die by falling down the basement stairs.",
">\n\nThis isn't making money off of it though. This is owning a home and being able to transfer your home to your family.",
">\n\nRight but anytime people can put money into something and eventually get more money out of it, people with more money want in on the game.",
">\n\nExplain your notion of the ideal economic system including the practicalities.",
">\n\nPointing out that our current system sucks and that capitalism, when functioning correctly, leaves people behind doesn't require that to has an entire alternative system figured out, and to suggest otherwise is childish.",
">\n\nYes it does. Otherwise it is just bitching with no solution. I was taught to never complain without a solution because THAT is immature! You were obviously not taught this.",
">\n\nLol, no, you just have a stupid take here. You don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem. Anyone who solves problems knows this.",
">\n\nOke then solve the problem with a specific practical solution or bitch to no effect up to you.",
">\n\nYou're just going to double down on being dumb aren't you?",
">\n\nOké Lets hear the solution from you since you self identify as a smart person.",
">\n\nLadies and gentlemen, he has tripped down and is ignoring the conversation. You didn't think it could get the dumb, be'it here we have it.",
">\n\nYou are the one ignoring my question because you have no solution.",
">\n\nI actually have a couple of possible solutions, but you seem incapable of understanding the simple idea that you don't need to have a solution to recognize a problem so I don't think you'd understand a tax strategy or a regulatory strategy.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone\n\nWow, if only there was a Magic 8-Ball that we could all agree on as the arbiter of what investments make things better for everyone.\nCapitalism on a global scale has more than any other force lifted more people out of poverty. That has been the experience of the 20th century, whether you like it or not.",
">\n\nWell that's an opinion not a fact! As you couldn't possibly show that what your suggesting was caused by capitalism, as it was just 1 small aspect of so many things that occurred over the course of 100 years. Anything that has come from government during that time is not capitalism.\nCapitalism is the use of capital (money) to make more money. No more no less.\nWe live in a world that under goes regular (approx. 7 year cycles) recessions where most people suffer financially. Why, because we live in a capitalist system, not because it's inherent in life that every 7 years millions of people must lose their jobs, houses etc. \nWe live in a world that need tso endlessly grow/create more wealth to pay off interest on loans. So constantly extracting more resources from this finite world. Why because capitalism firstly allows interest (unlike almost all of the world religions, which holds usury to basically be a sin(I'm not religious btw)). secondly, however in the modern day all debt that is created is created out of nothing! So, you want a loan for $1 million you go to a bank, you might assume that the bank checks it's records to see if it has a million dollars to give you, but no it doesn't at all, that's not how it works now, all they care is that you can pay it back. If they think you can they give you the loan. Then it comes into creation out of thin air, that million dollars literally did not exist before you walked in the door. As mental as that seems it is how it currently works. The problem is they don't create the interest. Think on this for a second...... There is literally not enough money by quite a margin to pay off all debt. It is built into the system that a % of people and business MUST go bankrupt so others can survive. \nSo you can't say it had lifted people out of poverty, but we can say it has and does explicitly ensure that a certain amount of people will be poor 🤔",
">\n\nThat rant was so hard to read I can't even tell what I'm arguing against. You managed to add an emoji to your post but couldn't be bothered with the Enter button?\nJust tell me why you believe living standards have risen globally over the past hundred years if not for capitalism and global free trade. What else occurred during those years that was not at all the fruit of capitalism to make living today better than living a hundred years ago?",
">\n\nDo you forsee capitalism continuing to improve the quality of people's lives en masse?",
">\n\nNobody know the future. We'll get there when we get there. As of right now it is still helped millions in the less privileges countries.\nI have never seem a country that is not a mixed of some form of capitalist and socialist. We'll likely just keep turning the dial back and forth to fit the need at the time; staying in 1 spot forever is impractical and foolish.\nTimes and conditions change.",
">\n\nI’m pretty left as far my politics are considered but this is such a stupid fucking take lol. If you own a house that you plan on selling someday, which is most people who own a home, then you’d be fucking stupid to not want to make money off it. That’s just being stupid with your money. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. And as long as that’s true, people should invest their money and assets for the future, homes are included in that.",
">\n\nThis is why people oppose building new houses in their area. The fewer homes there are, the more expensive your home becomes. This is why housing is so expensive now. This is boomer mindset.",
">\n\nThere's probably a middle ground where individual (or multiple individual) homeowners can't bully cities into doing/not doing things for the collective good and they can still sell their house.",
">\n\nMy wife and I have purchased and sold two houses and have reinvested the money into our current house 🤷🏻♂️",
">\n\nThat is an investment however. \nThe way I see it an investment has to generate value through a transaction, if you buy improve and resell, then the value is in the fact that now the building offers improved facilities. \nIf you buy to rent there is no value generation, but movement of money from one entity to another without any additional value, and this should not be allowed because it is detrimental to the economy. \nIt hoards things that become more valuable on paper due to higher demand for a now artificially scarse resource, but the actual value of the building is depreciating because of facilities becoming obsolete.",
">\n\nI'm curious what you think about my former coworker. He buys homes, fixes them up and rents them out for a little more than the cost of taxes and the morgage. ussually with an open offer where the renter could buy the home/take over the morgage.",
">\n\nIt's about added value provided. Your former coworker, fixes a house and then uses the rent to pay for mortgage and get a little on top of that. \nNow imagine same coworker, with 10, 20 or more houses, no fixes and gets to keep all the money.\nThe difference is staggering, and I'm pretty sure who you would rent from if you had the chance",
">\n\nWhat out about people who move frequently? What about people who cannot afford to buy? What about people who aren’t handy and don’t want to pay for maintenance expenses?",
">\n\nPerhaps a few more people could afford to buy if these properties weren't used as someone else's 7th investment property",
">\n\nSo you're saying that if it wasn't for this, I could buy and sell a place every few months instead of having to rent one?\nMoving from NYC to Toronto could be done within the month? Neat.",
">\n\n\nit’s not the tenants responsibility to make you money\n\nMan doesn’t know how leases work",
">\n\nPosts like this always make me chuckle. The amount of Redditors that think homeownership will somehow be the cure to all their ailments is absolutely ridiculous. Your average Redditor can’t put their pants on without pissing themselves yet somehow they’ll be able to manage the maintaining of a home? Some people just flat out don’t have the intelligence, foresight, and flat out the will to own a home. They just like the idea of owning a home haven’t the slightest clue at what the actual cost is.",
">\n\nI own a home. My parents own a home. Both sets of grandparents owned homes, my aunts and uncles, most of my cousins. I still think it’s messed up for these shitty “landlords” to own all the houses. Hurts the chances for others to do so, houses cost more when Jerry owns 18 of them. Should everyone own? No. My MIL is a good example. If you can’t or won’t do basic maintenance (or don’t have the money to pay for every single thing to be done professionally) you’re better off renting. But there are a lot of people who could very well take care of a home. It can be expensive, sure. In the past 2 years we have had to replace flooring all the way down to the subfloor in half the house, rerun water lines, run gas lines, replace several appliances, and many other very expensive things, and that’s with the knowledge and ability to do the work ourselves. But it shouldn’t be nearly as difficult as it is to buy a home.",
">\n\nSame, we were able to buy a house because we put an offer day of. There's an investment company that's been buying up the neighborhood since we bought it. I don't mind renters it's landlords that are the problem.",
">\n\nI prefer to invest in real assets such as homes as opposed to abstracted financial instruments like stocks.",
">\n\nThis post reads as \"dont be more financially literate than I am because it makes me feel bad about my financial choices\"",
">\n\nLiterally lol, they complain instead of learning",
">\n\n“Let me tell you how you should not do Capitalism, but I’ll do Capitalism as I see fit, k?”",
">\n\nWithout capitalism, we depend on our politicians to take care of us…which leads to communism.",
">\n\nCareful now, you might get the Australian elite on your ass if you say things like that. They might be liable to sue for slander, or burn your house down!",
">\n\nI'm wondering how unpopular this opinion is nowadays, well at least I wholeheartedly agree with you. Capitalism only enables rich people to become richer, poor people will stay poor. Especially when rich people set up laws that prevent poor people from making money that don't suit with the values of the rich.",
">\n\nWhat you described isn't a fault of capitalism, it's the result of a corrupt government working hand in hand with businesses and setting up laws that benefit them at the cost of the consumers.",
">\n\nCould we say the same about communist countries then? That communism isn't at fault, but rather the corrupt government.",
">\n\nCommunism has failed every time it was attempted.",
">\n\nOP currently works minimum wage, but thinks they should get paid as a doctor. I fact checked.",
">\n\nRenting out your home doesn't make you greedy. Most people who rent their homes do so slightly above their mortgage. Just enough to pay for any maintenance that comes up and to pay the management company if they have one. The profit comes from selling the home or paying off the mortgage",
">\n\nSomeone clearly doesn't like their landlord.",
">\n\nOr how about we let people do what they want?",
">\n\nyeah, then the world would have 0% crime rate as everything are legal!",
">\n\nIm gonna say it again. Im working, buying a house, repeat, so i can retire before the age of 70. Its my money, i worked for it, i bought the houses. Its that easy. If they dont want to pay rent, buy the house.",
">\n\nDo you genuinely think people are renting just because they don't want to buy a house",
">\n\nNo, it's a business. It only works because it's benefitting others.\nIf you move to NYC for college, you'll rent. You won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house that you'll sell in 1-4 years.",
">\n\nI agree about homes, at least in the US. There is a shortage of homes, and flipping them for a quick buck is not capitalism. It's profiteering. This would be easy to fix, though. Slap a hefty tax on the proceeds from a single family home sale if the home wasn't the seller's primary residence.\nThe rest of your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth. You presume that there's one pie, and if someone takes a bigger slice then it leaves less for everyone else. However, most wealth is created - not taken. For example, if I own 1000 shares of stock, and that stock goes up in value 50%, then my wealth has increased without decreasing the wealth of anyone else.",
">\n\nThey already do tax flipped houses.... you have to live there for two years or pay increased capital gains.",
">\n\nWhat would some acceptable investments in your fascist utopia?",
">\n\nIts more auth center/auth left so tyranical yes, facist not really. It is authoritarian but fails to meet other criteria of facism",
">\n\nWow, so many people enjoy being fucked by capitalism judging by these comments.",
">\n\nNot unpopular, mod please close. Your antiwork side is showing. If you think government housing is better, do your research. Yes landlords should be restricted on crazy pricing but it’s an open market. You can also really help people out with affordable housing. Sounds like you should go to college and get a better job.",
">\n\nIf I had a regular house and charged $10000 a month for rent, it wouldn’t be occupied. The market restricts it.",
">\n\ni think you’re onto something here. everyone should pool all their money together to make sure everyone has a house. no one should make more than another person even if one is a homeless person and the other is a ceo of a multi billion dollar company. there should be no such thing as rich or poor and we should all eat the same food. no one gets “organic” or “fresh” foods. we all eat bars of protein to make it fair.",
">\n\nThere should be hard limits on the number of properties you can own/have an interest in. \nLike you’re allowed two or three - one to live in and one you can rent out, max. We need to stop this attitude of scalping/hoarding property by landnonces. We wouldn’t let people hoard water or food and profiteer off that when there’s a shortage, why do we allow it with houses.",
">\n\nWhat happens when people put houses in other people's names and pay them a share of the profits?\nYou know, people will always figure out a way to make more money. More rules only lead to more corruption, not better regulation. Unless your society is rooted in honesty, most aren't.",
">\n\nI believe the fact people can buy large swathes of it while we have a modern serfdom where people pump 2/3 of their wages to simply have a roof, something is wrong. Failure of my health made me homeless for a while, something I saw coming despite rock solid financial planning, there was no easy route out. So I ended up abroad for months at a time while I rolled up the public housing list, all with compromised mobility. \nThe solution I believe is say a small guy can own one or two or three homes in a given country they have residency in, but private corporations abroad can't just sweep up thousands of properties (corporate landlords). Also mortgages... If you have a track record of paying years of way higher than mortgage rent, you should be fine even if interest rates go up. Public housing that you can buy with the proceeds going on building more as an addition. (this where the government could have helped with right to buy in the UK).\nThe ability to rent does serve a market, so this would allow a balance of it, if someone could say rent out a second home and still have plenty to spare.\nThis would leave far more housing available for the population. My friend hasn't even met his landlord who owns the whole tower block. He pumps more than a full time jobs worth of minimum wage on the rent.\nMy partner grew up near a slum in conditions not far off it. He says it's a massive problem in the west. In the Philippines, you must be a local to buy a house. He says the sheer number of homelessness I've showed in streets is \"worse than tondo, at least they have a house even if it's a shack\" and he's spent time IN tondo (a slum in Manila), so he knows what he is talking about. Here the issue is wages, but housing for both lower and middle class, you just give the money and have keys in your hand. None of this 1000 tennants to 1 house crap as foreign investors can't just buy up entire tower blocks and developments.\nPlus the social structure of individualism over collective. I believe we need a balance of both, not too far one way or the other.",
">\n\nI had someone else do this exact illogical opinion on me in the r/fucknestle sub... some people are just...wow...",
">\n\nSorry in what way is wanting to end poverty and fix the root of the problem \"illogical\"?",
">\n\nThe idea itself is not illogical, but the way OP thinks we should go about it is a really dumb take.",
">\n\nEquality is a really dumb take? Damn I know who not to go to when my rights are threatened.",
">\n\nTell me you don't know how to read, without telling me you don't know how to read",
">\n\nThis is dumb.\nHouses are one of the few ways average people are able to accumulate some wealth and security over decades.\nThere’s nothing wrong with renting a home. Not everyone rents because they can’t buy. I don’t know who started the ridiculous concept that tenants are simply handing over money to landlords - they, like in every single trade of money for goods and services - are getting something in exchange for their money.\nEliminate homeownership and things don’t “get better for everyone,” the rich will simply get richer and the middle class and poor will simply be further under their control.",
">\n\nI thought this wasn't unpopular but given the comments...\nCome on people, surely you can see the difference between \"I bought 1-2 homes, sold them for a profit then bought my main home\" and \"I'm a big company, bought hundreds of homes that I rent\" ? \nThe sanest capitalism is capitalism with government safeguards. That people can't see how safeguarding against extremes is astounding (extremes like owning LOTS of homes to rent, loss of income due to being fired without notice, medical issues ...).",
">\n\nWho here is advocating for the companies who are buying up all the properties?",
">\n\nHouses shouldn't be a commodity",
">\n\nPeople have the freedom to invest in whatever they want and make as much money as they can. It's just none of your business. \nNeither you nor anyone is forced to rent. Go and buy your own place.",
">\n\nwhat an idea, why didn't I think about that\nit's not like home ownership is out of reach for the majority or people (In Australia anyway)",
">\n\nRight? Home ownership is so realistic to us middle income folks. I earn what is considered a medium family income (as a single person), and ownership is still out of reach. I'm what's called wealthy according to our US standard of living, and I still can't afford to \"live.\"",
">\n\nBtw... not complaining about being middle income. I appreciate that I can afford rent, considering most cant these days. But if it were 50 years ago, I'd have a mansion, a pool and 3 cars. The fact that people don't understand that blows my mind. I did everything \"right\"... college, credit, etc... but I still don't have the luck of being born 50 years ago.",
">\n\nLuck has nothing to do with it. I don't own houses and land based upon luck or happenstance. It was intentional. \nFrom the sounds if it, you make far more than my paltry salary.",
">\n\nLiterally all money should be reinvested? How do you pay your employees?",
">\n\nIf I can buy it low and sell it high then it's an investment.",
">\n\nThe stupid excuses in the comments just prove that you are right.",
">\n\nI 100% agree with you. You should be allowed to buy your second house only if the market supply exceeds the demand (and currently it isn't). Otherwise, it means you're taking a house away from someone else.",
">\n\nIf people don't do things for personal gain, the house doesn't even get built, I was a bricklayer, so I can tell you I don't wanna break my back for charity.\nRenting and buying are used in different situations for different reasons. You can't rent if a person isn't renting, so landlords and homeowners are helping people out by making an investment.\nAn investment is taking risk for future gain, so its not like they just steal deeds to a house kill the family that lives there and sells it for gain.\nIt's not unpopular nowadays to pointlessly hate people better off than you. Just get good instead of worrying bout people having more than you.",
">\n\nEven if you remove capitalism out of the equation, there is still scarcity of the housing.",
">\n\nThe defenses of capitalism propping everything up are always the goddamn same, and they're hilarious.\nThey can generally be broken down into a few short connected claims:\n\n\nCapitalism has been here for a while, and therefore must be the best possible socioeconomic system. \n\n\nWhat are you, a communist? \n\n\nActually, poor people are too stupid/don't have the motivation/don't have the willpower/aren't capable/don't deserve to have housing, which is really their own fault. \n\n\nWho would you rent from? The gubberment? What are you, a fuckin Red?\n\n\nSo on and so forth, ad infinitum.",
">\n\nI get you are a Socialist, but your opinion is not about home ownership, its's actually about you being an Anti Capitalist.\nAlso no, as long as I live in a Capitalist society, if I want to make make money off an investment than I will and includes making money off a home.",
">\n\n\nIt is not the tenants responsibility to make you money.\n\nWithout a profit, there is no money to maintain the home for a liveable domicile. Greed is everywhere, socialism, capitalism, communist, etc. Tell me who is not what you profess?",
">\n\nIf a bunch of people are seeking personal gain they have to compete against each other in price and quality.\nWhich inevitably leads to better outcomes.\nThis is econ 101.",
">\n\nYes, I'm sure first home buyers appreciate having to compete with investors buying their 50th rental property. What a great outcome!",
">\n\nPeople who collect properties like trading cards are parasites in my opinion \"someone or something that resembles a biological parasite in living off of, being dependent on, or exploiting another while giving little or nothing in return\" and the worst part is they have all our elected leaders in thier pockets so nothing will charge",
">\n\nLandlords provide an important service to tenants: They provide housing to individuals who are unwilling or unable to purchase their own home.\nIf there were no landlords this wouldn't translate into renters owning their own homes, there would be shanty towns filled with poor people.",
">\n\nLandlords don’t provide a service. They didn’t build the house. They don’t even have to maintain it, they can hire a property manager. Landlords just buy more properties than they need and force renters to pay their mortgage for them.",
">\n\nBut builders don't build houses unless they think ...somebody... will buy the house.",
">\n\nThe literal handymen? I don’t think they care if anyone buys the house or not as long as they get paid. I’m not sure what this has to do with landlords anyway.",
">\n\nThe reason why you don't understand what this has to do with landlords is that your perspective is different. You speak as one who is speculating. \nOn the other hand, I began years ago as a landlord. Now, I build houses... and landlord. I may not build a house unless I can sell it. Build to rent is not something I typically will do but I would if I saw sufficient profit.",
">\n\nHomes should be an investment, there should just be reasonable restrictions which allow landlords to make money while also not making the tenants pay an unreasonable amount.",
">\n\nWho decides what that cap is? And how is that enforced? Everyone who buys a house pays a different price and has a different interest rate.",
">\n\nThe most popular opinion ever.\nAlso you don't understand economy and the role of speculation.",
">\n\nonly popular on reddit bc people on this site are stupid as fuck, irl u would rightfully get laughed at for this",
">\n\nOh here come the puritans stepping off the Mayflower: “This is communism derp da derp!”",
">\n\nThose who own more than one home are the ones that participate in the renting market. Landlords are an important part of the rent economy. Limiting houses landlords can own, is limiting the renting supply, and severely hurting the renting market - which will either result with price increases, or just severely unmaintained rental apartments. \nWhat exactly is that you are trying to solve? Why is that a problem that people are \"hoarding\" houses? How is limiting the amount of homes people can own help with that?",
">\n\nYou should be able to do with your money as you please, you earned it not other people",
">\n\nSo communism.\nThat works out great. Ask Russians who lived through those years where housing was deemed appropriate at 7'x10' and there was a 3 year waiting list to get one.\nYou think it would be all nice and everyone would get a nice big house. Reality, in actual historical practice, says different.",
">\n\nThat's horse shit. The mentality that people can't get ahead by selling or offering a service is such a strange concept that comes from a place of envy and jealousy. By your logic, everyone stays poor and nobody gets into anything and innovation is slowed way down because there is no incentive to create something new because you won't prosper. Do you think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or even Thomas Edison would have created and built the things they did if their profit and earnings were going to be taken away? Not a chance.",
">\n\nA house IS an investment because you can live in it.\nAnd if you happen to have more than one, there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with allowing someone else, who isn't in a position to buy one, to live there for a reasonable rent.\nBut I guess it's just another \"hot take\" of someone who despises capitalism despite firmly living under it and probably being unaware of their privilege.",
">\n\nyelling makes you look insecure about it.",
">\n\nHaving more money left to spend could lead to a domestic economic growth. Instead, landlords rake up cash to buy more already existing houses to rent out, therefore hindering an economic recovery.\nThey don't build new ones, they don't maintain old ones, it's pure greed.",
">\n\nCongrats, you're a communist!",
">\n\nSuch a ridiculous take",
">\n\nThe concept of making a profit off of basic necessities like housing, for one, is abhorrent.",
">\n\nHow do you think supermarkets exist?",
">\n\nExploitation.",
">\n\nRight, so your idea is that the government should just give you the food for free?",
">\n\nNo, a government shouldn't really be meddling with food at all beyond safety and preventing practices detrimental to the environment. \nFood should be much more localized and less globalized. There's no reason communities shouldn't be mostly feeding themselves, there's plenty of land and like 20,000 species of edible plants. The people who want to grow food would grow it for others and everyone can be fed. Unlike our current system where we produce and waste way more food than is needed and people still go go hungry all while destroying the environment.",
">\n\nSo you're basically suggesting reverting to pre-industrial society? Do you think that's a realistic solution to the problems we're currently facing?",
">\n\nThat's not what I'm saying. Where did I say anything about not using industrial farming? I said local. In fact we are stagnant with food technology.",
">\n\nGrowing food locally means that some people would only be able to eat turnips and other people not have access to vegetables at all. Why would that be better than everyone being able to enjoy all vegetables available?\nAnother point about the environment: if a western country can produce a vegetable more eco friendly than an African country could, then it would be environmentally better to produce it in the west and export it to Africa. Even considering the shipping.",
">\n\nI did actually say mostly locally, hardiness zones exist, and yes maybe some people probably would have to give up avocadoes and quinoa and or whatever. But like I said, food technology is stagnant. If we weren't so caught up in the pettiness and greed of capitalism every city could have it's own self sustaining agricultural arcology that could provide everything the people need or want. For now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example, and turning all these empty office buildings(WFH has made it apparent offices of even necessary jobs are unnecessary) into vertical hydroponic farms. \nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.",
">\n\n\nFor now we should be getting rid of useless unproductive jobs contrived by capitalism, such as debt collectors or telemarketers for example\n\nWait, what's useless about debt collectors? How would any business be able to sell anything if they can't enforce the sale?\n\nI doubt there's many foods that sustain an eco friendly footprint after being shipped across the globe, especially under capitalism where we do shit like grow tangerines in Argentina then ship them to Thailand to be packaged and then ship them to the US for sale.\n\nI don't have any figures but it's not hard to imagine. The carbon footprint of producing a tomato can be X in the Netherlands and X * 10 in Ghana. The footprint of one transport ship will always be Y for one trip. If you can manage to fit enough Dutch produced tomatoes into one ship, the total footprint will eventually be lower than Y. That means that it will become a net profit for the environment. Western countries have a lot more technological power to produce eco friendly food than poor countries do.",
">\n\nBro just described communism.",
">\n\nTell me you don’t know how economics works without telling me you don’t know lmao",
">\n\nStupidest thing I've ever heard.",
">\n\n\nPeople should build and rent homes at a loss because I want them",
">\n\nIl add an equally unpopular opinion that I feel goes with this one:\nAll property is theft😁",
">\n\nTheft from whom?",
">\n\nFrom the commons, from all of us!\nBut if you want the real answer read Pierre -Joseph Proudhon",
">\n\nNah, I don't think I want the 'real answer'.",
">\n\npopular opinion on reddit, stupid irl",
">\n\nAverage Redditor mad at their current predicament venting on Reddit instead of being productive",
">\n\nCommunist spotted",
">\n\nOp is angry at his landlord, now he's projecting his rage onto all investors lol",
">\n\nWhy would I work at all if everything I worked for went to someone else?",
">\n\nDisagree because that's not how economics work.\nGreat job on the unpopular opinion. Upvote.\nIn all seriousness, I too wish that were the case, but the best move to do is educate the populace to be future business leaders, so they can remain relevant and competitive.\nI'm sorry OP if this is coming off as rude, but here me out. Imagine if 80% of the population of the US had their own company/corporation. Instead of people saying, \"what social apps do you use?\", they say, \"which social apps do you have?\" Everyone pretty much provides a product or service and therefore produce their own money.\nI know it's different than your mindset, but I genuinely feel this is the best solution to economic inequality.",
">\n\nIf a Tenant signs a Lease Agreement, then it is their responsibility to make you money. They signed an agreement to do so. \nI know what you're saying, I own a Holiday house I rent to someone escaping domestic violence. I charge her what it's costs me, I'm not making a profit , I just want her to be far away and safe. \nWhile I get what you're saying, I don't agree. Upvoted.",
">\n\nThis is just advocating for communism with extra steps.\nPeople are motivated by rewards. People are also greedy. Whatever fantasy of a peaceful, lovely society you have, where all is for all and not for one is just that; a fantasy.\nHouses are just one of the pieces. You buy an asset so that if the economy falls, you have a home, and something to sell later on, for example.\n\nSo ask yourself, \"What is human nature\", and study on psychology. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, who understands human psychology, would dream of something like communism, because it goes against human nature in modern society. It would be a lovely world to live, sure, but your best bet is playing Minecraft on Peaceful mode, if you want to live a fantasy.",
">\n\nWhat I think is funny are the amount of people who hate landlords and scream capitalism, but those same people want investment properties and want tenants of their own. Weird.",
">\n\n...or live in apartments because it is the most convenient and affordable choice for them.",
">\n\nQuality public housing is a better investment in the community IMO. I don’t see any issues with sliding scales, and laws supporting them for underserved peoples. Land lords would be compensated, and people would enjoy a safe, wonderful, home. That is doable, and hardly a utopian ideal.",
">\n\nWhere should you live if you cannot afford to buy a house then?",
">\n\nAgree, along with healthcare and education. These are necessaities to human beings and this can be accomplished in any country, given the technological advancement we had reached, if not for the greedy 1% and the captilism poppets.",
">\n\nI think there's a difference between a house/appartment being profitable for the landlord and exploiting your tenants. I'm happy that I don't live where ever OP lives, whilst rent is very expensive in some places, that's literally demand->price. Not to forget the limit that our government has put on rent increase, and rent overall.",
">\n\nShould? Why not! BUT is it possible?? Is it practical?? How would you make it work?",
">\n\nYou buy a house for 120,000\nYou sell a house for 120,000\nThat’s how you make it work. Self control if you will. \nYou could sell that house for 220,000 and most people are greedy so they will sell at that price anyway.",
">\n\nYou know that houses can be worth next to nothing sometimes if you actually look at the real value with all the new regulations implemented, especially in European country where there are houses more than 30 years old.",
">\n\nYou know we pay taxes and insurances on these houses right? And when we sell the house we get smashed with property gains tax.",
">\n\nOne of my former coworks buys houses and only charges enough rent to cover taxes, the morgage and maintaince most of the time. He actually talks to the tennants about life then figures out rent. solid dude. Corperate land lords are scum.",
">\n\nI guess you would prefer people live in slums?",
">\n\nIf there weren't landlords in my town there would be 1000 of homeless people. There isn't anywhere near enough council houses. It's a town with high unemployment, and the rental houses are full of people on benefits who will likely never purchase a house. I have one property we rent out (we don't even make money on it), we have never had a tenant in it who has paid the rent themselves in full.\nThere should be laws against landlords buying up homes for sure, though. There should be a very small limit on properties. But in some areas, they are absolutely essential. \nBanks should though take rental payments as proof that people can afford a mortgage.",
">\n\nJust ban corporations from buying residential property's and put a cap on how many homes people can own while renting them out.",
">\n\nWait, what is that? I think I can hear the entirety of China’s financial infrastructure crumbling underneath this sentiment lol",
">\n\nDefinitely an unpopular opinion",
">\n\nI just wish they'd make it legal for people to have an auxiliary unit on their property where I live. Mother in law suite, tiny house, rv, etc. Give the landlords some competition so they actually have to try and offer something decent to keep tenants. Where I live there's too many renters and landlords just don't care because people will accept anything as there is nowhere else to go and waiting lists everywhere. \nI figure if every homeowner could rent something on their own property (or atleast allow a family member to live there who would have been renting elsewhere) that would take away some of the demand atleast and landlords would have to actually compete?",
">\n\nSo if I have a spare room, I should just let anyone live there rent free?",
">\n\nI have repeatedly asked what the cost to the government would be to build all this housing and what will this mean to increased taxes and the subsequent effect on the economy. These are my practical considerations and people here see these questions as philistine and unimportant. Until someone is willing to answer these questions I am no longer interested in this thread and will no longer participate",
">\n\nI'd rather rent a place for a few months and be able to move elsewhere or to a completely different part of the world whenever I want, instead of having to save up for 10 years before each move.\nLikewise, I can make a bit of extra income by allowing someone else to do that with my properties.",
">\n\nIf you want everything to be invested for the best of everyone, the main priority is not people investing in houses…",
">\n\nIf you take away the incentive to make money from housing, you take away much of the incentive to actually provide housing.",
">\n\nPersonal selfish gain lmfao\nDude we're all guppies in an ocean with whales. You're upset that some guppies get a little more of the scraps for themselves. Meanwhile the top 1% increased their wealth by an insane margin during every economic \"disaster\" in the past 40 years. \nBut yeah, that family who's going to gain some equity in their home. How selfish!.\nYou're just someone without a house of your own and so you resent home owners for it.",
">\n\ni mean youre not wrong",
">\n\nBuy high sell low.",
">\n\nHousing should be a human right.",
">\n\n\nall money should be reinvested to make things better for everyone. Not hoarded for your personal selfish gain.\n\nOn one hand I agree with you on this. On the other, I like seeing how my efforts to make more money have allowed me to enjoy privileges that the average person cannot.",
">\n\ni think what you’re telling us is that you’re a socialist or communist!",
">\n\nMan, just play the game. Save up a few thousand and go for it. We will walk with 50k after just three years of ownership",
">\n\nAverage redditor attempting to understand anything remotely connected to economics",
">\n\nHow would a one house policy play out in the USA? Somebody do the math please and thank you.",
">\n\nOp is a teenager.",
">\n\nWho fixes the toilet if you don’t own the property you live in?",
">\n\nPlumbers usually.",
">\n\nFinally someone else with basic sense\nEdit: made this comment without reading the whole thing, landlords should get money from their business.\nBut some people buy homes and just let them sit empty for like 5-10 years to sell them and make a profit, that shit don’t make no sense to me as anyone could be living in that home.\nAlso renovating a house is a service and the renovated house is your product which should be profitable in the same way as if you make a whole house for someone",
">\n\nA house you buy is both your home and an investment. You're probably spending the plurality of your income on the purchase and upkeep of your home for the bulk of your career, you want this to have some residual value for later in your retirement or to pass onto your children.\nI think it is \"toxic\" when people focus on the investment side too heavily, and are afraid to make their house their home because of what a hypothetical buyer may want, but that doesn't mean it isn't (or shouldn't be) an investment.",
">\n\nThe fk did I just read",
">\n\nI think it would be fair if landlords would actual do work like organizing repairs and keeping your rental intact. I guess you can outsource the complete process and simply earn money because you own which seems icky.",
">\n\nIcky? They are paying someone to do a job. That’s even better for the economy than doing it themselves.",
">\n\nThe icky part is that they are now earning money by doing nothing.\nAnd they dont pay the workers, its basicly the people who rent the place, the owners dont ad anything which is worth giving them money for.",
">\n\nBut they are doing something. They are employing someone. If you were a home builder, you aren’t going to build the house yourself are you? You are going to hire framers to do the framing, plumbers to do the plumbing, electricians to do the electrical, etc. Would you sell all of the houses at the cost of labor and materials? Of course not. Otherwise, why would you waste the time?",
">\n\nSure I would sell at the cost of labour and materials, thats how it should be.",
">\n\nThen how would you afford to buy anything? You would be making no profit.",
">\n\nWhat happens to the money you get for your labour?",
">\n\nYou don’t perform any labor in this scenario. Your job is to hire the people to build the house. But we can say that you are the laborer. Who is going to hire you to perform that labor?",
">\n\nI mean the employment takes time which you can calculate as work, dont know how long it takes but after you know some good builders, maybe 1h of phone calls around 100$ per house?",
">\n\nSo how is that different from the landlord who is employing the people to perform maintenance on the house? They have to hire plumbers, painters, electricians, people to do flooring, etc.",
">\n\nWrong sub, OP",
">\n\nShow me on this doll where the mean landlord touched you."
] |
Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA | [] |
>
Haha | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA"
] |
>
This seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha"
] |
>
I was thinking the same thing.
It's just a Free License to import western culture. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations."
] |
>
Does this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media.
The US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture."
] |
>
Probably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years."
] |
>
I doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights... | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit."
] |
>
China is the closest to fitting that criteria | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights..."
] |
>
Yes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria"
] |
>
therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there
The point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect."
] |
>
I live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.
Now we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day."
] |
>
Good to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.
Edit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment? | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply."
] |
>
you wouldn't download an army? | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",
">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?"
] |
>
You wouldn't download a dictator | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",
">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",
">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?"
] |
>
Luka is bloatware incarnate. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",
">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",
">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",
">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator"
] |
>
Blyatware. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",
">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",
">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",
">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",
">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate."
] |
>
Perfection | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",
">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",
">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",
">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",
">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",
">\n\nBlyatware."
] |
>
Jokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",
">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",
">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",
">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",
">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",
">\n\nBlyatware.",
">\n\nPerfection"
] |
>
And all those crappy Russian propaganda movies from unfriendly Russia who's trying to use them as meat for their invasion of Ukraine. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",
">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",
">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",
">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",
">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",
">\n\nBlyatware.",
">\n\nPerfection",
">\n\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture."
] |
>
Bro can yall just fucking not? Doesn't matter what the fucking thread is about yall always need to bring up the fucking war. The world doesn't revolve around Russia and Ukraine. | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",
">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",
">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",
">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",
">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",
">\n\nBlyatware.",
">\n\nPerfection",
">\n\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture.",
">\n\nAnd all those crappy Russian propaganda movies from unfriendly Russia who's trying to use them as meat for their invasion of Ukraine."
] |
>
What do you think this law is about? | [
"Post Nintendo fan content in Belarus to avoid DMCA",
">\n\nHaha",
">\n\nThis seems like an invitation for subtle propaganda from unfriendly nations.",
">\n\nI was thinking the same thing.\nIt's just a Free License to import western culture.",
">\n\nDoes this even make a dent in profits? Belarus is a tiny country of less than 10 million people, not exactly a key market for media. \nThe US has probably sneezed more money at Ukraine in the last week than Belarus has paid to US media companies in the last 50 years.",
">\n\nProbably not a huge dent, but it could be the start of a trend, where other countries follow suit.",
">\n\nI doubt there are any large countries whom depend on exports that would just go and ignore intellectual properties rights...",
">\n\nChina is the closest to fitting that criteria",
">\n\nYes, but China also very much does not want influence from western culture, and therefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there, so western media companies don't have as much to lose there as one might expect.",
">\n\n\ntherefore greatly restricts what can be legally distributed there\n\nThe point is bootlegs can't be legally distributed in China, but the trade is huge. There is literally no Hollywood film or Western TV show you can't pick up on most street corners in China, burnt onto a DVD for around $1.50. And if they don't have what you want, you can ask them, and they'll have it for you the next day.",
">\n\nI live in china. That was true. Over a decade ago.\nNow we pirate online like everyone else. You can buy accounts for western streaming services very cheaply.",
">\n\nGood to know. I lived in China 18 years ago.\nEdit: What's it like there with the COVID at the moment?",
">\n\nyou wouldn't download an army?",
">\n\nYou wouldn't download a dictator",
">\n\nLuka is bloatware incarnate.",
">\n\nBlyatware.",
">\n\nPerfection",
">\n\nJokes on them. Now it is legal to watch The Witcher: Blood Origin. That is a torture.",
">\n\nAnd all those crappy Russian propaganda movies from unfriendly Russia who's trying to use them as meat for their invasion of Ukraine.",
">\n\nBro can yall just fucking not? Doesn't matter what the fucking thread is about yall always need to bring up the fucking war. The world doesn't revolve around Russia and Ukraine."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.